I am not an historian, decent author or a journalist, and the chances are that unless there is a link or reference to somewhere else, the perpetrator is yours truly – Renaud Sarda. I created this blog as a focal point, to arm people with arguments and facts that they can perhaps use to counter biased media reporting and anti-Israel propaganda, and to help counter (BDS) campaign. I am a Zionist/Sephardi/Jew who will fly the Israeli flag, and defend whatever Israel does.

The Glasgow Jewish Representative Council was last night hosting Humza Yousaf MSP( a possible Scottish Foreign Minister in an independent Scotland) to speak about The future Scottish Government’s Approach to Foreign Policy in a question and answer session.

I went there this a unique opportunity to question a MSP who has a recorded history of support for Boycott and anti-Israel parliamentary motions.

Mr Yousaf was asked several probing points on the Arab-Israel conflict and his & the Scottish Government’s views.

He was at pains to point out the similarity of their views with that of the UK Government.

He made it clear that he supported a 2-state solution, based on “the ‘67 borders”. He believes that the settlements and the continued building of settlements are illegal.

As to his “relationship” with SPSC, He claimed he has none, citing the bad press he gets on the SPSC website. “If they are buddies – who needs enemies” he said.

Asked if he believed Israel is an apartheid state, he replied “No”.

In response to the questions:

Q. Given your published history of promotion of boycott of Israeli businesses, do you believe that such policy should be supported by any future independent Scottish Government as part of it’s approach to foreign policy?

A. I can assure you that I do not support boycott of goods from Israel.

Q. Does that include settlement goods?

A. All Israeli goods.

Q. There were approximately an equal number of Arab & Jewish refugees as a result of the Arab-Israel conflict (850,000), I’m sure you will agree thatthis is an issue of compassion and denial of justice to human beings. Do you accept that a just and lasting peace agreement could be better achieved by both refugee positions receiving equally just solutions, as called for in UNSC resolution 242?

A. He admitted that he had never heard of that number of Jewish refugees, was uninformed in that respect and would like to know more.

Mr Yousaf comes across as an able and confident politician. Always keen to emphasise his pro-justice beliefs. As far as I’m concerned the jury is still out.

From Stanley ( Scottish Friends of Israel)

Mr Yousaf. That was VERY impressive indeed. You are surely the most competent MSP I've met since I mat and chatted with the now dearly departed Margot Macdonald. I trust and hope we can have a sensible reasonable dialogue despite having some fundamental disagreements regarding Israel and the Palestinians. I will write to you separately regarding the appalling state of affairs for women in the Palestinian territories and also 'the Gaza blockade' and 'Goldstone'.

Whether, after reading this, you accept that 'settlements' are not in reality illegal under ANY international law ( a dubious, much argued-over concept at best) I understand that you think that they still are, in your words, 'an obstacle to peace'. My simple question is why? Why are Jews building homes ANYWHERE, an obstacle to peace? Surely Jews have a right to build houses wherever they choose. Palestinians build houses all over Israel and no one blinks an eyelid.

Here's an alternative thought Sir. Jews building houses on land THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BUILD ON, is not an obstacle to peace but it IS another excuse for The Palestinian Arabs to reject two states living side by side in peace and harmony and with secure borders- as required by an ACTUAL international binding law- UN resolution 242- a resolution that doesn't even mention 'Palestinians' (but does make very clear that the UN does NOT require Israel to retreat back to the patently indefensible 1967 lines). Have you read UN resolution 242 Mr Yousaf? You should. I think you'll be surprised by its contents.

In truth the "settlements" issue is just another in a long long line of excuses for The Palestinians NOT to make peace with Israel, they're very good at it, they've been REJECTING every state offered to them going back to the Peele Commission of 1937. I very much doubt you knew that Sir. I'll go into more detail regarding their rejection of 'Palestine' later in this email.

Thinking clearly, how could they possible live side by side with The Jewish State when they have spent decades inculcating hatred of Jews across state media, mosques, schools, universities etc, indeed from kindergarten to grave, that Israel and the Jews are evil parasites. They, and I include both the PA and Hamas in this, continuously call for the elimination of the Jewish state; state openly that the Jews have no connection to the land, and that The Jewish Temple wasn't even in Jerusalem; selling a house or land to a Jew is punishable by death! Terrorists are sanctified, treated as heroes and awarded state pensions. Its brainwashing,with peace set up to fail.

Unless the Palestinians ( like the Irish Republicans) renounce terrorism, accept Israel as the Jewish State, stop their ridiculous demand for non- existent 'rights of return' and stop claiming ALL OF ISRAEL as "Palestine"' sorry but there will never be peace in our time.

And in case you are in ANY doubt, the Jews crave peace, I have yet to meet one who does not-just as they craved a return to their historical and Biblical Homeland, land given to them by God in his eternal irrevocable Covenant- which finally came to pass after 2000yrs.

Mr Yousaf I believe you are surrounded by those who demand BDS of Israel and ONLY Israel. What with all the humanitarian disasters and lack of civil rights happening all over the world, where every Arab state is guilty of flouting the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal court; they show racial, ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination against black Africans, the Kurds, Christians Jews, and women; among other things, their policies and practices include depriving or limiting people of their civil, religious, and political rights; practicing discrimination; infringing on freedom and dignity of people; subjecting them to arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment; and preventing groups from participating in the political, social, economic, and cultural life of their countries. In Iran they're digging up non-Muslim graves and turning the land into car parks...with all that AND MUCH MUCH MORE, why on earth would they single out the Jewish state for their opprobrium? Do you think perhaps the clue is in the name? Anyway, enough preamble. Here's what you need to hear. I'm confident much of it will be completely new to you ie it's never mentioned in The Herald, The Guardian , The Independent or the BBC BUT IT IS IRREFUTABLE.

Renaud meeting MSP Humza last night at Giffnock Synagogue, Glasgow.

Some use the ICC to justify their " illegal settlements under International Law" narrative. Firstly, the ICC can ONLY investigate and prosecute in situations where states are unable or unwilling to do so themselves. BUT Israel’s High Court HAS investigated and continues to investigate any neighbourhood/ "settlement" thus, the ICCs "opinion" (NOT LAW) does not apply to Israel. In truth, we can reasonably conclude that the ICC’s decision to investigate Israel was nothing more than an Arab instigated POLITICAL not a juridical decision. Indeed In 1998 the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced "The International Criminal Court Background Paper". It concludes “International law has long recognised that there are crimes of such severity they should be considered "international crimes". Such crimes have been established in treaties such as the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions.... The following are Israel's primary issues of concern [ie with the rules of the ICC]: – The inclusion of settlement activity as a "war crime" is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law.

In other words, when you say the settlements are illegal it is premised on some VERY dodgy ground/legal opinion.

Did you know Mr Yousaf that Israeli settlement throughout the West Bank is explicitly protected by international agreements dating from the World War I era, subsequently reaffirmed after World War II, and never revoked since! Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were recognised as legitimate by the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations, and that the only administration that completely prohibited Jewish settlement was that of Jordan from 1948 to 1967.

The DISPUTED land was ruled by Jordan post 1948 but they subsequently lost it to Israel when they attacked Israel in 1967. Land acquired in defence when attacked by an aggressor - Jordan- is PERFECTLY LEGAL to annex under International Law. After 1967 UN resolution 242 came into being. UN resolution 242 does NOT call for the withdrawal by Israel from ALL the territories it captured in its DEFENSIVE war against the Arab armies.

Furthermore, for there to be an "occupation", there must have been a sovereign identity with claim to the land being occupied. Who was this identity? The "Palestinians" who were clearly called Arabs until the 1960s? Nope! Was it Jordan's and Egypt’s ILLEGAL occupation and annexation of Gaza and The West Bank/Judea and Samara? YES!!!

Clearly if Egypt and Jordan ILLEGALLY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW occupied these areas they were not, in the words of The Geneva Convention, so - called High Contracting Parties. Thus Israel cannot be deemed to have taken anyone's sovereign territory- LEAST OF ALL PALESTINIANS-as they don't own any of it and never have done cf previous to The British Mandate the land in question was controlled (for over 400yrs) by The Ottoman Empire . They lost it in WW1. Hey, perhaps we should be giving all the Middle East including Israel Palestine Jordan Iraq Saudi Arabia Lebanon Syria back to Turkey???

Furthermore, in 1920, the League of Nations (the predecessor to the United Nations) defined the terms of the British Mandate over Palestine. Article 6 of the Mandate states:-

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land [my emphasis], including state lands not required for public use….”

Yes, The settlements issue is one of the core issues to be negotiated in the Permanent Status negotiations,and the Palestinian leadership has agreed and is committed to the fact that it does not exercise jurisdiction regarding such Permanent Status issues, settlements included, pending the Permanent Status negotiation! ( which of course they just trashed by signing up to multiple UN bodies).

The Glasgow Jewish Representative Council was last night hosting Humza Yousaf MSP( a possible Scottish Foreign Minister in an independent Scotland) to speak about The future Scottish Government’s Approach to Foreign Policy in a question and answer session.

I went there this a unique opportunity to question a MSP who has a recorded history of support for Boycott and anti-Israel parliamentary motions.

Mr Yousaf was asked several probing points on the Arab-Israel conflict and his & the Scottish Government’s views.

He was at pains to point out the similarity of their views with that of the UK Government.

He made it clear that he supported a 2-state solution, based on “the ‘67 borders”. He believes that the settlements and the continued building of settlements are illegal.

As to his “relationship” with SPSC, He claimed he has none, citing the bad press he gets on the SPSC website. “If they are buddies – who needs enemies” he said.

Asked if he believed Israel is an apartheid state, he replied “No”.

In response to the questions:

Q. Given your published history of promotion of boycott of Israeli businesses, do you believe that such policy should be supported by any future independent Scottish Government as part of it’s approach to foreign policy?

A. I can assure you that I do not support boycott of goods from Israel.

Q. Does that include settlement goods?

A. All Israeli goods.

Q. There were approximately an equal number of Arab & Jewish refugees as a result of the Arab-Israel conflict (850,000), I’m sure you will agree thatthis is an issue of compassion and denial of justice to human beings. Do you accept that a just and lasting peace agreement could be better achieved by both refugee positions receiving equally just solutions, as called for in UNSC resolution 242?

A. He admitted that he had never heard of that number of Jewish refugees, was uninformed in that respect and would like to know more.

Mr Yousaf comes across as an able and confident politician. Always keen to emphasise his pro-justice beliefs. As far as I’m concerned the jury is still out.

From Stanley ( Scottish Friends of Israel)

Mr Yousaf. That was VERY impressive indeed. You are surely the most competent MSP I've met since I mat and chatted with the now dearly departed Margot Macdonald. I trust and hope we can have a sensible reasonable dialogue despite having some fundamental disagreements regarding Israel and the Palestinians. I will write to you separately regarding the appalling state of affairs for women in the Palestinian territories and also 'the Gaza blockade' and 'Goldstone'.

Whether, after reading this, you accept that 'settlements' are not in reality illegal under ANY international law ( a dubious, much argued-over concept at best) I understand that you think that they still are, in your words, 'an obstacle to peace'. My simple question is why? Why are Jews building homes ANYWHERE, an obstacle to peace? Surely Jews have a right to build houses wherever they choose. Palestinians build houses all over Israel and no one blinks an eyelid.

Here's an alternative thought Sir. Jews building houses on land THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BUILD ON, is not an obstacle to peace but it IS another excuse for The Palestinian Arabs to reject two states living side by side in peace and harmony and with secure borders- as required by an ACTUAL international binding law- UN resolution 242- a resolution that doesn't even mention 'Palestinians' (but does make very clear that the UN does NOT require Israel to retreat back to the patently indefensible 1967 lines). Have you read UN resolution 242 Mr Yousaf? You should. I think you'll be surprised by its contents.

In truth the "settlements" issue is just another in a long long line of excuses for The Palestinians NOT to make peace with Israel, they're very good at it, they've been REJECTING every state offered to them going back to the Peele Commission of 1937. I very much doubt you knew that Sir. I'll go into more detail regarding their rejection of 'Palestine' later in this email.

Thinking clearly, how could they possible live side by side with The Jewish State when they have spent decades inculcating hatred of Jews across state media, mosques, schools, universities etc, indeed from kindergarten to grave, that Israel and the Jews are evil parasites. They, and I include both the PA and Hamas in this, continuously call for the elimination of the Jewish state; state openly that the Jews have no connection to the land, and that The Jewish Temple wasn't even in Jerusalem; selling a house or land to a Jew is punishable by death! Terrorists are sanctified, treated as heroes and awarded state pensions. Its brainwashing,with peace set up to fail.

Unless the Palestinians ( like the Irish Republicans) renounce terrorism, accept Israel as the Jewish State, stop their ridiculous demand for non- existent 'rights of return' and stop claiming ALL OF ISRAEL as "Palestine"' sorry but there will never be peace in our time.

And in case you are in ANY doubt, the Jews crave peace, I have yet to meet one who does not-just as they craved a return to their historical and Biblical Homeland, land given to them by God in his eternal irrevocable Covenant- which finally came to pass after 2000yrs.

Mr Yousaf I believe you are surrounded by those who demand BDS of Israel and ONLY Israel. What with all the humanitarian disasters and lack of civil rights happening all over the world, where every Arab state is guilty of flouting the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal court; they show racial, ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination against black Africans, the Kurds, Christians Jews, and women; among other things, their policies and practices include depriving or limiting people of their civil, religious, and political rights; practicing discrimination; infringing on freedom and dignity of people; subjecting them to arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment; and preventing groups from participating in the political, social, economic, and cultural life of their countries. In Iran they're digging up non-Muslim graves and turning the land into car parks...with all that AND MUCH MUCH MORE, why on earth would they single out the Jewish state for their opprobrium? Do you think perhaps the clue is in the name?

Anyway, enough preamble. Here's what you need to hear. I'm confident much of it will be completely new to you ie it's never mentioned in The Herald, The Guardian , The Independent or the BBC BUT IT IS IRREFUTABLE.

Renaud meeting MSP Humza Some use the ICC to justify their " illegal settlements under International Law" narrative. Firstly, the ICC can ONLY investigate and prosecute in situations where states are unable or unwilling to do so themselves. BUT Israel’s High Court HAS investigated and continues to investigate any neighbourhood/ "settlement" thus, the ICCs "opinion" (NOT LAW) does not apply to Israel. In truth, we can reasonably conclude that the ICC’s decision to investigate Israel was nothing more than an Arab instigated POLITICAL not a juridical decision. Indeed In 1998 the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced "The International Criminal Court Background Paper". It concludes “International law has long recognised that there are crimes of such severity they should be considered "international crimes". Such crimes have been established in treaties such as the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions.... The following are Israel's primary issues of concern [ie with the rules of the ICC]: – The inclusion of settlement activity as a "war crime" is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law.In other words, when you say the settlements are illegal it is premised on some VERY dodgy ground/legal opinion.

Did you know Mr Yousaf that Israeli settlement throughout the West Bank is explicitly protected by international agreements dating from the World War I era, subsequently reaffirmed after World War II, and never revoked since! Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were recognised as legitimate by the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations, and that the only administration that completely prohibited Jewish settlement was that of Jordan from 1948 to 1967.

The DISPUTED land was ruled by Jordan post 1948 but they subsequently lost it to Israel when they attacked Israel in 1967. Land acquired in defence when attacked by an aggressor - Jordan- is PERFECTLY LEGAL to annex under International Law. After 1967 UN resolution 242 came into being. UN resolution 242 does NOT call for the withdrawal by Israel from ALL the territories it captured in its DEFENSIVE war against the Arab armies.

Furthermore, for there to be an "occupation", there must have been a sovereign identity with claim to the land being occupied. Who was this identity? The "Palestinians" who were clearly called Arabs until the 1960s? Nope! Was it Jordan's and Egypt’s ILLEGAL occupation and annexation of Gaza and The West Bank/Judea and Samara? YES!!!

Clearly if Egypt and Jordan ILLEGALLY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW occupied these areas they were not, in the words of The Geneva Convention, so - called High Contracting Parties. Thus Israel cannot be deemed to have taken anyone's sovereign territory- LEAST OF ALL PALESTINIANS-as they don't own any of it and never have done cf previous to The British Mandate the land in question was controlled (for over 400yrs) by The Ottoman Empire . They lost it in WW1. Hey, perhaps we should be giving all the Middle East including Israel Palestine Jordan Iraq Saudi Arabia Lebanon Syria back to Turkey???

Furthermore, in 1920, the League of Nations (the predecessor to the United Nations) defined the terms of the British Mandate over Palestine. Article 6 of the Mandate states:-

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land [my emphasis], including state lands not required for public use….”

Yes, The settlements issue is one of the core issues to be negotiated in the Permanent Status negotiations,and the Palestinian leadership has agreed and is committed to the fact that it does not exercise jurisdiction regarding such Permanent Status issues, settlements included, pending the Permanent Status negotiation! ( which of course they just trashed by signing up to multiple UN bodies).The special regime governing the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians is set out in the series of agreements and memoranda negotiated between 1993 and 1999 and still valid. These documents cover all the central issues between them including issues of governance, security, elections, jurisdiction, human rights, legal issues, and the like. In this framework there is no specific provision either restricting planning, zoning and continued construction by either party, of towns and villages, or freezing such construction.

Furthermore, the two sides agreed in the 1995 Interim Agreement, signed and witnessed by the U.S., the EU, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, and Norway, on a division of their respective jurisdictions in the West Bank into areas A and B (Palestinian jurisdiction) and area C (Israeli jurisdiction). They defined the respective powers and responsibilities of each side in the areas they control. Israel’s powers and responsibilities in Area C include all aspects regarding its settlements – all this pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations. This division was accepted and agreed upon by the Palestinians, who cannot now invoke the Geneva Convention regime in order to bypass their acceptance of the Interim Agreement or their and the international community’s acknowledgement of that agreement’s relevance and continued validity. THUS IF ANYONE IS CONFLAGRATION OF PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS AND ALSO OF ARTICLE 49 OF GENEVA’S FOURTH CONVENTION, IT’S THE PALESTINIAN ARABS!

What's also interesting is you're blithe acceptance that the soon- come Islamic Republic of Palestine has any right to demand Jerusalem as its capital. It was never even mentioned in the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s covenant until Israel regained control of East Jerusalem in the Six-Day War of 1967.

For the record Jerusalem has NEVER been a Muslim capital city despite being ruled by various Muslim states for over 1300yrs. Oh and also for the record, off and on its been its a Jewish capital for over THREE THOUSAND YEARS,

I will happy back up all the above with facts and quotes if you have neither the time or inclination to do the research Mr Yousaf. But rest assured, authoritative experts who have declared Israel’s presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan to be legal, include inter alia

Judge Schwebel, a former President of the ICJ, who pronounced “As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbours, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem.” (http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id248.html )

Professor Julius Stone, one of the twentieth century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations.

“Irony would…be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that…the West Bank…must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49.”

Eugene W. Rostow, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969 who played a leading role in producing the famous Resolution 242.

“The Convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviet Union during and before the Second World War – the mass transfer of people into and out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labour or colonization, for example….The Jewish settlers in the West Bank are most emphatically volunteers. They have not been “deported” or “transferred” to the area by the Government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population it is the goal of the Geneva Convention to prevent.” See http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id45.html

Jacques Gauthier, Canadian lawyer who spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem leading to the conclusion on purely legal grounds, ignoring religious claims that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law. Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28qwcVPNy3E

William M. Brinton, who appealed against a US district court's withholding of State Department documents concerning US policy on issues involving Israel and the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip. He showed that none of these areas fall within the definition of "occupied territories” and that any claim that the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, or both, is a Palestinian homeland to which the Palestinians have a 'legitimate right' lacks substance and does not survive legal analysis. According to Mr. Brinton no state, other than Israel, can show a better title to the West Bank.

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QC., the British specialist in international law, who concludes inter alia that sovereignty over Jerusalem already vested in Israel when the 1947 partition proposals were rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression.

Simon H. Rifkind, Judge of the United States District Court, New York who wrote an in depth analysis “The basic equities of the Palestine problem” (Ayer Publishing, 1977) that was signed by Jerome N. Frank, Judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals Second Circuit; Stanley H. Fuld, Judge of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York; Abrahan Tulin, member of the New York Bar; Milton Handler, Professor of law, Columbia University; Murray L. Gurfein, member of the New York Bar; Abe Fortas, former Undersecretary of Interior of the United States and Lawrence R. Eno, member of the New York Bar. They jointly stated that justice and equity are on the side of the Jews in this document that they described as set out in the form of a lawyer’s brief.

Since 242 is a security council decision it is legally binding unlike resolutions of the GA that are mere recommendations. Obviously the most reliable sources from whom to seek clarification are the persons who played key roles in drafting the resolution, including Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Eugene Rostow. In an article in The New Republic, "Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies," (Oct. 21, 1991) Rostow wrote that it was explicitly agreed that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' Armistice Demarcation Lines, but to secure and recognized boundaries. For this reason, the word “the” was deliberately omitted in the call for “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” not from all the territories.

Regarding the REJECTION of Palestine by the Palestinians heres the meat( ( Halal and. kosher of course) on the bone:

1937 The Arab ' Palestinians' are give 70% of the area ( NOT country) of Palestine; the Jews a mere 20%: The Palestinians reject their country the Jews accept theirs.

1939 the Palestinians are given FULL independence; The Jews NO are denied anyJewish State; Again, The Palestinians REJECT this astonishing order of a separate country.

1948 UN Partition of Palestine-Jews accept the mere 23% of land they were original given under the Balfour Declaration ( 77% is given to the Hashemite Prince to form trans-Jordan ) BUT, as ever, The Palestinians reject the terms and wage war against the nascent Jewish State etc, etc, etc

1956 WAR1967WAR1973 WAR1993-95 Oslo Agreement signed by Mahmoud Abbas for the PLO but swiftly rejected by Arafat 2000 - 01

In summary:

1917, Balfour Declaration, rejected

1920, San Remo Conference, rejected

1922, League of Nations decisions, rejected

1937, Peel Commission proposal, rejected

1947, United Nations proposal, rejected

1948, Israel's peace offer, rejected

1967, Israel's peace offer, rejected

1978, Begin/Saadat proposal, rejected

2000, Camp David , Barak/Clinton offer, rejected (Arafat gets 95% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with some Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem neighbourhoods as a capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries.Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being: 2nd intifada instigated as a cover up).

This was the best offer I think The Palestinians will ever get Mr Yousaf. Clinton's proposal gave the Palestinians about 97% of the territory of the West Bank and sovereignty over their airspace. Refugees could not return to Israel without Israeli consent. An international force would remain in the Jordan valley for six years, replacing the IDF. Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem and the Haram as Sharif (temple mount) would be incorporated into Palestine. Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar Ibn Sultan said, "If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy, it will be a crime." (Ross, The Missing Peace, 2004, p.748). HE DID. Why why why?

2005, Sharon's gesture, rejected

2008, Olmert's proposal, rejected

2009 to present, Netanjahu's offer to talk peace directly, rejected

In addition, between the years 1948 and 1967 the now disputed territories were "cleansed" of their former Jewish residents and totally ruled by the Muslim-Arabs, yet, during this whole period of time no independent state was set up there and Jerusalem was not proclaimed its capital city. Why, why, why?

THEY REJECT EVERY OFFER OF PEACE AND REFUSE TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH-FOR ONE VERY SIMPLE REASON. DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS SIR?

And now a bit about the 'history' of the Palestinian Arabs.

The term "Palestinian" is a masterful twisting of history. To portray themselves as "indigenous", Arab settlers adopted the name of an ancient Mediterranean tribe, the Philistines (“Invaders” in Hebrew), that disappeared out over almost 3000 years ago. The connection between this tribe and modern day " Palestinian" Arabs is exactly nil!

Arabs began identifying themselves as part of a "Palestinian" people in 1964 egged on by Syria ( mostly) and Egypt, but also on the initiative of Egyptian-born terrorist Yasser Arafat and his "Fatah" organisation who eventually took over the PLO in 1969. Suddenly Palestinians were newly defined as … "Arab citizens who were living permanently in Palestine until 1947 and their descendants". Additionally, "the future Palestinian state ( is ) to be established on the whole territory of Mandatory Palestine.( ie NO JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL ) The Charter stipulated that "the partition of Palestine, and the establishment of the "Zionist entity" were "null and void";(that's the UN thumbed) and, "the claim of a historical or spiritual tie between Jews and Palestine" was denied. ( The Judeo-Christian Bible snubbed ). Also, "The Palestinian people… through the armed Palestinian revolution, reject any solution that would be a substitute for the complete liberation of Palestine."

Around 1969 the PLO leadership began organising and "educating", the people, taught to "become" Palestinians, using the media and in school books, in the refugee camps that the Palestinians insisted on residing in, in Syria Lebanon and Jordan. Children were inculcated with hatred of Jews and the Jewish state, and to take arms against their Jewish neighbour. No dissent was brooked. (More recently Christians and other non- Muslims are increasingly under attack).

As Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist has commented: “Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian? "... they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”. “When I finally realised the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.

And if further evidence be required: Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose "Palestinian" representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds."

"Arab leader, Abd al-Mahdi, testified before the Peele Commission in 1937 as follows: "There is no such land. Palestine is a term invented by the Zionists. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our land was for hundreds of years a part of Syria."

And if the true nature of these invented Palestinians be in any doubt : "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." Member of P.L.O. leadership, Zahir Muhsein

Ridiculously, and without irony, Palestinians today claim to be a separately identified "people", with a common culture, history, system of government and court system, currency and exchange rate, language, etc. but these Palestinians have no history beyond the 50yrs they have existed. No kings, judges,heroes. No ancient authors, artists or politicians.

In reality, the vast majority of todays " Palestinians" are families of immigrants from surrounding countries, Egypt Saudi Arabia Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, as well as from Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Morocco, Bosnia, the Caucasus, Turkmenistan, Kurdistan, and beyond who came to the area to find work and better health conditions AFTER the many Jewish Zionists who came in the late 19th century. These Jewish patriots were intent on draining the malarial infested swamps in the north and barren desert in the south to make the land inhabitable-which it hadn't been uptill then. This is historical fact sir.

At that time no more than 141000 Arabs ( Ottoman census) lived throughout the entire Holy Land with Jews already the overwhelming majority in Jerusalem. The Jews came. They drained the swamps. They made the deserts bloom. They created an astonishing miracle of a modern state.

Yet back In 1948, the Arabs in the newly independent Israel were ordered to leave by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews.

"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949

"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did." Jamal Husseini, nephew of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, told to the United Nations Security Council, quoted in the UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14

Most of them left in fear of being killed by their own Arab brothers as traitors. And many were, by forces under the command of the Nazi al-Husseini, the Muslim Mufti of Jerusalem.In parallel, some 836000 Jewish refugees - many with 1000yr long histories in countries like Morocco Iraq Iran Algeria and Yemen were being ethnically cleansed due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

Palestinian journalist, Mahmud Al-Habbash who writes for the official Palestinian Authority newspaper, Al Hayid Al-Jadida, declared that Arab residents of Palestine in 1948 were not expelled by Israeli officials or military forces, but were actually ordered to leave by local Arab leaders, “…The leaders and the elites promised us at the beginning of the “Catastrophe” in 1948, that the duration of the exile will not be long, and that it will not last more than a few days or months, and afterwards the refugees will return to their homes..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida,December 13, 2006]

"One morning in April 1948, Dr. Jamal woke us to say that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), led by the Husseinis, had warned Arab residents of Talbieh to leave immediately. The understanding was that the residents would be able to return as conquerors as soon as the Arab forces had thrown the Jews out. Dr. Jamal made the point repeatedly that he was leaving because of the AHC's threats, not because of the Jews, and that he and his frail wife had no alternative but to go." Commentary Magazine, Jan. 2000,http://www.commentarymagazine.com/0001/letters.html

And how about this astonishing admittance from none other than PA leader Mahmoud Abbas : "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND...and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe... The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity"-Mahmoud Abbas, "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976

The truth is the Jews pleaded with their Arab brethren to stay and build a land together : "[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel." Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee 1949

"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe. [However] ...Evacuation by sea goes on steadily. ...[Two days later, the Jews were] still making every effort to persuade the Arab populace to remain and to settle back into their normal lives in the towns... [as for the Arabs,] another convoy left Tireh for Transjordan, and the evacuation by sea continues. - Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948.

But perhaps most tellingly, this from Sarah Elshazly, an Arab commentator : “The question is, why did Arabs living in what became Israel flee? The ones who remained in their homes actually live and prosper. So why didn’t they stay? The Arab world warned the Palestinians of staying with the Jews...and that the Palestinians should leave in order for them not to get hurt. My family members have always told us that there were cars going around telling people to stay put. The cars contained Jews. They told everyone that they will not harm them. Thus we have the situation where Jews are begging Arabs to stay and live with them and other Arabs from outside the country were telling them to flee for their lives."

Indeed, here's Arafat for once stating the REAL truth and his real intention: "Palestine is nothing but a drop in an enormous ocean. Our nation is the Arabic nation that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea and beyond it..... The P.L.O. is fighting Israel in the name of Pan-Arabism. What you call "Jordan" is nothing more than Palestine.". Yasser Arafat.

Consider that the tiny Nation of Israel comprises less than 0.5% landmass of the Middle East ( which itself presently comprises TWENTY TWO ARAB COUNTRIES of over 320million mainly Muslim Arabs) is still 0.5 percent too much for these Arabs. The total for all the 22 Arab League countries is 6,145,389 square miles (square miles). Israel has 8,463sm. Which is the David and Goliath in this charade? However, backed by deluded, fanatical ultra-left cognitive dissonants the world over, and in some cases antisemitic church leaders, it has proved relatively easy, from a propaganda standpoint, to convince world public opinion of the rights of the sad, poor, small, deprived "Palestinian People" to its own state, than to justify the clutching demands of the enormous imperialist colonial Arab empire for an addition of territory wrenched from a tiny tiny country fighting for its life.Why let the facts get in the way of a good story eh? PS I grew up in Pollokshields, in an area consisting of many many Muslim families, I went to school there too.

At the time I played with and was buddies with countless Muslim kids, never ever a problem that I can recall based on race or religion.

At secondary school that was a different matter; there I encountered systemic anti Semitism BUT NOT FROM MUSLIM KIDS- but from nominally Christian teachers and pupils.